They talk about due process, but I didn't see anything in this statement saying the government would have to prove the person they want to block is guilty of a crime. Seems like they are just taking the easy way out.

This should also be a wakeup call to anyone who thinks Trump is going to take a stand for gun rights if elected. He'd be better then Hillary, but still not ideal.

Remember, the NRA once supported the whole "smart guns" idea as well. They're not nearly as pro-freedom as groups like GOA.

"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane.” – Frank Herbert

Ohio9 wrote:The NRA is dropping their opposition to using the terror watch list to ban people from owning guns.

That's not how I read it at all. The NRA has never opposed banning people on a watch list. The opposition was in denying due process to those people to get off the list if placed on there by mistake. Senator Ted Kennedy was accidentally placed on a no-fly list and even with his political power it took him months to get removed from the list. Someone like you or me would never be removed thus we would be stripped of a Constitutionally protected freedom and then denied due process to get it back. Due process is a cornerstone of our republic.

Ohio9 wrote:The NRA is dropping their opposition to using the terror watch list to ban people from owning guns.

That's not how I read it at all. The NRA has never opposed banning people on a watch list. The opposition was in denying due process to those people to get off the list if placed on there by mistake. Senator Ted Kennedy was accidentally placed on a no-fly list and even with his political power it took him months to get removed from the list. Someone like you or me would never be removed thus we would be stripped of a Constitutionally protected freedom and then denied due process to get it back. Due process is a cornerstone of our republic.

Up to now, I never heard them say they were okay with banning people on the list from owning guns. The issue isn't just making sure people who get placed on the list by mistake are able to get off it. The main issue is that the government shouldn't be able to take away a constitutional right just by putting someone's name on a list. They should have to prove the person is guilty of something before taking away their rights, even if their suspicions are well-founded.

My point exactly. Even if there is a valid reason to put someone on the list, they shouldn't lose their rights unless the government can prove they have committed on offense. That's the position the NRA used to have, but now they seem to be giving it up.

That is still their position as I interpret what they said in that link. The slightest deviation and I will scream the loudest, but I don't see any deviation. Their rejection all along has been the lack of due process. If your significant other gets a restraining order against you, you lose your gun rights immediately but you still get due process to get them back.

What concerns me with the NRA release is in regard to "safegaurds", they only mentioned them for people put on the list by mistake. They didn't mention cases where the government intentionally puts someone on the list due to suspicion, but lacks proof they have committed any offense.

Ohio, the problem with the NRA getting behind the idea of smart guns, was that at the time, the Demoncrats were trying to make it mandatory, so we have a case of bad association here. If memory serves correctly, the NRA was also at one time in favor of using imprinted firing pins like are found on Hi-Points to make it easier for forensic teams to identify the gun an spent cartridge was ejected from, despite the fact that the tip of the firing pin could be filed down easily. This was in the mid to late 90s if I remember correctly, when the NRA had toned down the fiery rhetoric it had for a time following the Waco massacre.

"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane.” – Frank Herbert

Hand and Steel wrote:Ohio, the problem with the NRA getting behind the idea of smart guns, was that at the time, the Demoncrats were trying to make it mandatory, so we have a case of bad association here. If memory serves correctly, the NRA was also at one time in favor of using imprinted firing pins like are found on Hi-Points to make it easier for forensic teams to identify the gun an spent cartridge was ejected from, despite the fact that the tip of the firing pin could be filed down easily. This was in the mid to late 90s if I remember correctly, when the NRA had toned down the fiery rhetoric it had for a time following the Waco massacre.

I don't recall the NRA ever advocating that smart guns or microstamping devices be mandated. Do you have any citation for this?

Ohio, I'll try to find a source for the microstamping issue. I do not believe they wanted smart gun technology to be mandatory, but I seem to remember it was done as part of a "compromise", in a manner out of character with the usual style of the NRA.

As I said, this is from memory, and was close to twenty years ago. I'll search for sources regarding the microstamping issue.

"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane.” – Frank Herbert

Even if that was their old position, that doesn't necessarily hold relevance now. Back in the 1930s, the NRA president said he was opposed to legal gun carrying except in very limited circumstances. Obviously that's not the case today.

Ohio9 wrote:Even if that was their old position, that doesn't necessarily hold relevance now. Back in the 1930s, the NRA president said he was opposed to legal gun carrying except in very limited circumstances. Obviously that's not the case today.

So the NRA did tell the truth once up a time. Kinda shocked they would do that.

Ohio9 wrote:Even if that was their old position, that doesn't necessarily hold relevance now. Back in the 1930s, the NRA president said he was opposed to legal gun carrying except in very limited circumstances. Obviously that's not the case today.

So the NRA did tell the truth once up a time. Kinda shocked they would do that.

There may be some groups more passionately and ideologically dedicated to gun rights then the NRA, but I simply cannot think of any group that has produced the actual results for gun rights like the NRA has.

I agree with 11bravo. Unless the NRA turns this around, they'll be helping to set a dangerous precedent for the legal violation of firearms rights by watchlist.

"It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane.” – Frank Herbert

We, had a great bill go through here a few years ago, then the NRA got a hold of it. They are the reason that no weapon signs now carry the weight of law. It had removed the need for a ccp to have a weapon in your vehicle, they lobbied to have that removed from the bill, What actually passed when the NRA was done with, we gained almost nothing and loss a few big ones, thanks to the NRA.